Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yes. Planning Commission. When the Planning Commission and their secretary is ready to get started. Meanwhile, if you would like to speak on any item on the agenda, including open forum, please submit your speaker card now so we can determine how we will move this forward this meeting forward efficiently. If you've already filled out your speaker card, we thank you very much. So we'll take a few more minutes just to determine how many speakers we have today. Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the May 20 Planning Commission meeting. I'd like to call the meeting to order, and we'll do a roll call.

Commissioner Robb is absent. Commissioner Randolph? Here. Commissioner Lee?

Here.

Commissioner Aaron? Here. Vice Chair Sandoval? Here. Chair Rank?

Here. You have a quorum.

Thank you so much. Alright. We'll go to commission business and we'll start with agenda discussion. I'm gonna Catherine has a couple of announcements to make, but I wanted to just let everyone know that for today, we're gonna do one minute per speaker. We have a big crowd, and we have three major items on our agenda to do it today. So we have a lot to cover, so we're gonna limit folks to one minute today. Catherine?

Right. And I am letting you know, if you have not already looked at your June 3 agenda, which is published, you will note when you look at it that your election is scheduled for that day. So we will be you will be electing a chair and vice chair, on June 3. Thank you.

Was that it? Did you have something else?

I, you know, I wanted to mention that there's an article in now I can't remember if it's in the East Bay Times or Oakland side, about planning commission. If people are curious about, how the planning commission operates compared to years past. There's an interesting article for your reading. Pleasure. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Okay. Is there a director's report? No director's report. Okay. And so that'll take us to our informational report. This is item one.

Exactly. It's item number one on your agenda, and this is an information report to review and monitor the progress made in 2025 to implement Oakland's 2023 to 2031 housing element, updated the update the general plan, and meet the city's share of regional housing needs allocation, otherwise enduringly referred to as the RENA. Staff will also present supplemental reports on the results of the 2025 ADU survey and a review of deed restricted moderate income rents in Oakland. And I see that BB is here to initiate the presentation for staff. Thank you. Great. Thanks, BB.

Great. And K Top, can we have the presentation?

K Top, presentation, please.

Thank you.

Okay. I'm speaking into the mic. Okay. Hello. I'm Bebe Lagarder. I am a planner with the planning and building department, and I will be presenting today on the 2025 housing element, and general plan annual progress reports. I'm also joined with by Caleb Smith from the Housing, Oakland HCD, and we'll be happy to answer questions after the presentation. Okay. So the purpose of the general plan and housing element annual progress reports or APRs is to assess the city's progress implementing its general plan and the housing programs committed to in the sixth cycle housing element. The housing element APR also tracks Oakland's progress meeting its regional housing needs allocation or RENA.

In accordance with action five point two point one one of the adopted 2023 to 2031, Oakland housing element, a public hearing on this report was previously conducted before the ZUC, and additional hearings will be conducted before the Community and Economic Development Committee and City Council in the coming weeks. So I'm first going to provide a quick overview of the content reported in the 2025 general plan APR. The 2025 general plan APR includes updates from staff regarding general plan implementation and update activity that occurred during the count the previous calendar sorry, the 2025 calendar year. In 2025, the city conducted extensive community engagement to inform phase two of the general plan update, which is focused on the four elements shown on this slide. In addition, in 2025, staff also continued working on major long range planning initiatives to implement the Oakland general plan.

These are grouped based on the primary, element that they implement. However, some may, impact multiple elements. And this slide just lists plans and projects that were approved or ongoing in 2025 and that propose amending the general plan or a general plan land use maps. So now I'll get into an overview of the content reported in the 2025 housing element APR. The APR form provided by the state collects information on housing units proposed, entitled, permitted, and completed in the reporting year.

Those definitions of each of those milestones are included on this slide. 1,007 units were proposed, 1,944 were entitled, 712 were permitted, and 1,391 units were completed. The California Department, of Housing and Community Development uses six categories of affordability for the annual progress report as I've shown here. Just to note, acutely low and extremely low income were not categories that existed when our or that were, included in our our arena. And so any, units include that meet those affordability requirements are counted towards our very low income rate.

K.

So only building permits for the construction of new housing units are counted towards meeting ARENA. Building permits ensure that any new construction complies with all health, safety, and building code standards. 14% of Oakland's total RENA has been met in the first three years of this housing element cycle and at 1925% of RENA respectively. We've been pretty successful at permitting very low and low income units, while production of moderate income units and market rate units has underperformed with each of those categories only meeting 9% of our RINA, to date. Where units are located is also important for understanding the story of housing in Oakland.

We have put together an interactive map and dashboard that includes all this data, and that is linked on this slide and accessible on our website. The most market rate units permitted in 2025 were located in Council District 1. Deed restricted affordable units were concentrated in Council Districts 7 And 3. The remaining deed restricted affordable units were in Council District 1. And I just wanted to note that no deed restricted affordable units were permitted in Council Districts 245, or 6, and ADUs were, distributed pretty evenly across the city ranging from 10% of all permits for ADUs in Council District 3, to 20% in Council District 4.

The state uses a series of opportunity maps developed by the tax credit allocation committee and California HCD to define areas of low to high opportunity. These impacts fund funding availability for affordable housing with sites in higher opportunity zones being more competitive for funding. Most of Oakland's own residential capacity is in the low opportunity zones or sorry, low resource areas largely because a significant portion of Oakland, including much of downtown, is considered lower resource per TCAC's opportunity map. And so I now I'm just gonna give a little overview of how we're doing compared to other Bay Area cities. Oakland has permitted 14% of its RINA requirement as I mentioned previously.

This is roughly average compared to peer cities. San Jose has has permitted 14% of its RINA. Fremont has permitted 12%, and Sunnyvale has permitted 16% of its required units. As you can see from the purple bars on this chart, Oakland has permitted a larger share of its very low income and low income RENA than any of the peer cities reviewed. This rip Oakland's permitting of very low and low income units, represents 42% of all low income or below units permitted in Alameda County so far in this housing element cycle.

Studies have suggested that ADUs are a form of affordable by design housing, and housing element action three point two point six monitor affordability of permitted ADUs, committed the city to running two surveys of ADU owners to in order to better understand the on the ground affordability of these units. We ran the second of these two surveys in fall of twenty twenty five. And given a low response rate, we are still relying on the ADU affordability estimates that were established by, the Association of Bay Area Governments, which estimate that ADUs are affordable at 30% to, very low income units, 30% to low income units, 30% to moderate income units, and 10% to above moderate income units. However, based on the survey results, among units where rents were charged, we found that 82% are affordable to lower income households exceeding the 70% target established by the housing element. So we are seeing that ADUs are providing affordable housing.

However, we're not we don't have enough confidence in those results to use them in our in our APRs. And this just gives kind of a little bit more insight into, the affordability levels that we found. Okay. And that brings us to our moderate income, analysis. So at the request of this commission, we reviewed moderate income rents against market rate rents in Oakland.

For some context, 385 moderate income units have been permitted in Oakland so far in the six sixth housing element cycle, of which, 206 are deed restricted units in multifamily buildings and a 179 are ADUs based on the, Association of Bay Area government's ratio. In comparison, Oakland has permitted more than 1,900 units affordable to lower income households in the same period. In addition, Oakland permitted only about 6% of the moderate income units targeted in the pre previous housing element cycle while permitting about 55% of the targeted number of lower income units. The low number of moderate income units permitted in Oakland was identified as a concern a concern by state HCV and community members in conversations with staff. So, the goals of the analysis were to compare rent prices at recently completed market rate buildings to moderate income rents across the city, and then to understand vacancy rates in Oakland and then how those might be impacting rental prices and to review how neighboring cities report moderate income units on their housing element APRs.

Moderate income units are included in Oakland's s 13 affordable housing combining zone, which was created as part of this housing element. And that combining zone allows for bonus height for eligible affordable housing projects. I also want to note that Oakland HCD does not provide financial support to projects that include moderate income units, and no moderate income units were permitted in 2025. So the left side of the screen shows the one bedroom moderate income rent limit, which is the red line on this that chart, compared to the citywide one bedroom rents from 2016 through 2025. The right hand graph shows the same information for two bedroom units.

And we can see from these graphs that moderate income rents have increased over the past ten years while citywide rents have stayed relatively stable. However, in 2016 to 2017, moderate income rents for one bedroom units were much closer to the citywide rent, and the citywide rent actually exceeded moderate income rent for two bedroom units in in those two years. Since the Arena and Oakland's s 13 zone apply only to units in, new buildings, it makes sense to look at the rents charged at recently completed units. We identified 12 fully market rate buildings, completed in the past ten years to better understand how moderate income rents compare to the rents charged at these units. So at studio apartments, the moderate income rent remained below the median rent until mid twenty twenty.

And since then, the median market rate rent has remained roughly between $2,000 and $2,500, while the moderate income rent has risen steadily to just over $3,000. Similar to studio apartments for one bedroom units, we saw a drop in median rent charged in mid twenty twenty, at which point the moderate income rent limit rose above the median market rate rent at those buildings. And finally, for two bedroom market rate units, we also see a drop in price in mid twenty twenty. However, the median rent at these units remained above the moderate income rent until mid twenty twenty three. So while we can see that Oakland's market is not as competitive as it was in 2016, this could well change in the near future.

Rents in neighboring cities, including San Francisco, are rising and are already at a higher point than they are in Oakland. As you can see from this chart, which shows vacancy rates at multifamily units in the city, there's a spike in multifamily unit vacancies from around 2020 to 2021. This is a period when many of the, market rate units permitted in the late twenty tens, which there's a huge spike at that point, came online as well as a population flux spurred by the onset of the pandemic in 2020. The vacancy rate has remained around 7% since then with a small spike to almost 8% in late twenty twenty four. A healthy vacancy rate is often understood to be somewhere around 5%.

And taken together, the rent data that we have from the the new market rate buildings, and this vacancy rate data suggests that should production remain low while rents in neighboring cities increase, we could see a rise in rental prices in Oakland in the coming years as demand grows and vacancy shrinks. Okay. And then just to get into how we count our moderate income units, the state allows jurisdictions to count non deed restricted units towards their RENA targets based on market studies or other documentation of rents charged. And based on a review of twenty twenty five APRs, Alameda, Berkeley, Fremont, Oakland, and Pleasanton and Sunnyvale only count deed restricted moderate income units towards their moderate income RINA target. San Jose does count non deed restricted units towards moderate income unit target based on an analysis of current and projected unit data from CoStar.

San Jose has reported more than double the progress towards their moderate income unit target compared to Oakland, Fremont, or Sunnyvale, as you can see here. San Jose's approach to reporting non deed restricted moderate income units does not resolve staff's concern that no protections exist to retain the reported affordability levels of these units should market conditions change. And further internal discussions between the Department of Planning and Building, Oakland HCD, and the city administrator's office would be needed to assess the practicality and benefits and risks of of adopting reporting strategy similar to San Jose's. And that is my presentation. So thank you. Happy to take questions.

Well, thank you. That was a lot to cover in 31 slides. So appreciate that. I will open it up for questions. I think I know who may have some, but we can who wants to go first?

Commissioner Erins?

Sure. I can start things off. Thank you. Thanks to staff for putting this together. I requested this information eleven months ago, and so I'm happy that we have it now today to review finally. And thank you also for the updates you made since the zoning update committee. I I did notice some new information in the staff report, so thank you for that. Yeah. I do have a number of questions. I guess I'll just start from the beginning.

So you shared a little bit in the presentation about the how you chose the 12 new buildings that they were fully market rate. But in the staff report, you shared that there were 12,000 market rate units that opened in the last five years in Oakland. And so I'm wondering out of those 12,000, how you just chose those 12 buildings more specifically.

Sure. So I chose those by looking it was based on what data we have access to. And so I was using CoStar, and, we looked at the arena from the previous housing element cycle and identified buildings that came online in the past ten years that were a 100% market rate because we wanted to make sure that we were controlling for any deed restricted units that might be in a building. And so I wanted to make sure that we were only counting those buildings that only had market rate units. I shared a larger list with, my colleague who actually has the access to CoStar because I don't have that access.

And these 12 buildings were the buildings that we were able to find that data on. And so that that is how it was narrowed down.

So there wasn't information from any other buildings that met the criteria of being fully market rate in those years?

Yes. Okay.

Can you share a little bit more about the methodology for table one? That's looking at the income. So I read in the report that you used 30% of a 110% AMI. Did this come from TCAC? Where did the rent numbers come from?

So I looked at Alameda or sorry. HCD publishes the, income limits every year. And so I used I have the we used the definition from code section five zero zero five three b, which is one of the methodologies for calculating moderate income rents. And I used the published the HCV published income limits for a family of four from each year that we looked at, and

I calculated based on that. And that's Alameda HCV? Alameda County?

Or It's California HCV. Okay.

Can you share why you chose to use 30% of a 110% AMI when the policy allows up to a 120% AMI? Do you have yeah.

This was, I believe, in alignment

Can you with please introduce yourself?

I'm sorry. Caleb Smith, senior adviser for the City of Oakland's Housing Community Development Department. There is the typical standard for government restricted the restricted affordable housing is the actual rent charge in moderate income units is 30% of the 110% standard even though moderate income from an income qualification perspective is up to a 120% of area median income. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the origins of this, you could say quirk, in how this is organized. However, this is a standard statewide practice, for these units.

Again, we as a city do not directly fund moderate income units. We only fund units that are restricted to 80% of area median income or lower. However, this would be in line with, standard best practices.

And I can also just add, I did reach out to state HCD to get confirmation of how moderate income rents are calculated, and this was one of the formulas that they provided me with.

Okay. Yeah, I'm not familiar with that. Mean, part of the purpose of the study was to evaluate the Oakland policy, which allows up to 120% AMI. So I was thinking that that would be the top limit that you would use for the rent analysis.

I believe that any deed restricted moderate income unit that did exist in Oakland would be the rents would be calculated based on this formula. So that that is my understanding of how how moderate income rents are calculated.

Yeah. That's not my understanding. Are developers charging rent at the 120% level, or is it at the 100 are they lowering it to the 110%?

I don't yeah.

From what we understand, the typical practice we've seen is that recently, the rents in those units have typically been based on market conditions rather than based on the maximum allowable rent. So we don't have necessarily detailed up to the date information on every single unit, because we don't have, like, monthly reporting requirements or anything at that frequency. However, our understanding is that the typical prevailing market rent, as you've seen in the information provided, is below the threshold standard. So, typically, the developers are setting the rents based on what they think is viable and supported by the current market conditions.

Right. That's what we're here to evaluate. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Is this the time for comments or just questions?

Well, I'll see if anyone else has any

Oh, okay.

So let's keep it to questions, and then comments.

Okay. Thanks. So on page eight of the attachment, looking at the I think it was in the presentation too. I'm just wondering why the data didn't go all the way back to 2016 because for the market rate buildings, I think the first available data for the market rate rents in those graphs was, like, quarter three of twenty seventeen.

So that's based on when the buildings came online. So the way that I I narrowed down the buildings I looked at was anything that was included in our APR in the fifth cycle, I believe. However, because our APR is focused on I wasn't looking at completions. I was looking at permitted units. And so that graph just shows when the units actually came online and were avail available to rent.

And I would also would note that, many of the buildings actually had higher rental prices projected, before they were completed, and then we see a drop. So these are the the actual, listed prices as far as I can tell from the CoStar data.

Mhmm.

Okay. So because there was only one building in the 12 that was online in 2017, the rents that are in that graph are just from one building. Yes. That's correct. So it's quite a small sample size.

It is

a small sample size. And of course, they're gonna rent at what the market is, so there's some understanding that, you know, that rent could be reflective of other buildings, but it's just one building. Yes. And then 2018 is like two buildings and then so okay. In looking at the rents in the market rate buildings, did you account for incentives that developers offered, like a number of three months free rent or reduced rent for the first twelve months?

We did not account for that. We did not because there was not a consistent way for us to include that. So we used just the the list price that was provided in CoStar. Okay.

So tenants could be paying lower rent or have had some rents free based on developer incentives for renters, but that's not reflected in the data. Okay. And then did you consider amenity fees that developers charge tenants who are in nonmarket rate units? I guess they were all market rate units.

They were all market rate Okay.

And then, I just have a couple more questions. Thank you for answering my questions. So I think you I heard in your presentation that preservation units don't count for Rina, but I thought that they could.

Preservation units do not currently count towards the Rina. No. In Oak. But in the future in the future, they, there are law changes that

Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Because a b six seventy starting April first next year will allow for the preservation units to be counted, and then a b seven twenty six, allows for deed restricted units that undergo major rehab to be able to be counted. So I'll look for that next year. But I'm just trying to understand the universe of units that we mark as affordable and that, you know, there are some preservation units that in the future will be able to account for that. And then just confirming, I thought that we are counting ADU units towards Rina. Is that correct?

We are counting ADU Okay. Toward yes. My I think my point was just that the ADUs included the moderate income ADUs are based on that, association of barrier government's ratio. They are not actually deed restricted and they're not, you know, specifically each unit that we list as moderate income in the APR is not necessarily actually a moderate income unit.

Right. Yes.

I work at MTC. I'm familiar with the the methodology for that. But, okay, I just wanted to confirm. Okay. While I have the mic, let me just skim through my questions. I think that that's it. Thank you for for me for my questions.

Of course. Any other questions? And I do believe we have one speaker, so I'll call for public comment. But any other questions? Commissioner Lee?

So there's been about half a dozen or or more specific plans adopted in the last ten or fifteen years, and they had affordable housing goals associated with them, usually 15%. Do we have any data on progress towards those goals within those areas?

That's not something we track as part of the annual progress report. I'm not aware of any I'm not aware of any tracking of that that, I can speak to.

Okay. So and, so just to put in perspective, the moderate income, I think it's it's like 135 to 190,000 a year is the is the the the category?

I'm sorry. Can you repeat that?

The moderate income household is a 135 to 190,000 a year about thereabouts.

I don't have the Yeah. I unfortunately do not have the income in front of me.

That's okay. Yeah. I mean I think I think generally the percentage of households who are rent burdened in this category is is pretty low. It's like in the single digits. But there is they have a big obstacle around purchasing the first home. And so related to that, the I was wondering about the housing element rezoning of single to two to four units, whether that's resulted the rezoning in the housing element of the single family to two to four units, whether that's resulted in more housing production and what type of housing has been produced? Is that something that has been looked at?

We haven't looked to see where in areas where those rezonings happened, what the new production looks like. Yeah. I'm gonna let Laura respond to that.

Yeah. So I would say it would it would be a little early. Sorry. Laura Kaminsky, strategic planning manager. I would say it would be a little early to see that because we just passed that those zoning changes. I think it was six or eight months ago and and they'd had to first go through the permitting entitlement process and then before they would go into the building permit process. So but that is something that we can look at and certainly look at because that is one of the categories that is counted in the APR as the two to four unit category and typically we've had very low production in that area. So that is something we can look at and and get back to you and track and see whether we are seeing an increase in that or not.

Okay. Thanks. And, you know, I have I am very interested in this the issue of the moderate income housing. I did look at the the 12 properties that are selected. I think the criteria that you chose ended up selecting some pretty high end properties.

They have they all have very sort of luxurious amenities. And I did see that four of them were completed in 2020. So I guess that would mean that for the the entire time they've existed, their their their rent was below the modern income limit, if I'm understanding that correctly. And then there's so like like the three that were completed in 2019 they were their rent was above the modern income limit for one year maybe and then etcetera.

The median rent of the buildings that we're renting in each year was below the moderate income limit for for any buildings. Yeah. So after 2020, yes.

Yeah. And I saw in a staff report that the average rent increased in Oakland $75 year over year. So and the moderate income limit increased more than that year over year so so that would mean that the gap between the moderate income limit and the average rent is that is increasing.

It has increased over the period that I looked at. Yes.

Yeah. San Francisco rent average rent I saw was 3,000. It was actually slightly below the modern income rent for a studio in Oakland. So if if average Oakland rent were to jump up to San Francisco today, it would actually be still below the the moderate income limit for a studio apartment in Oakland. Is that am I understanding that correctly?

I believe so. I'm sorry. Don't have the numbers right in front of me. But

Yeah. I I think that one thing that we were trying to look at it again is you're you're talking about median but when you're looking at what is being constructed new only and we didn't look at that analysis in San Francisco. But if you look at the new buildings and what's coming online I would imagine those rents would be higher than what the median is. And so I think the concern we have is when we're talking about the you know progress report, you're talking about new buildings are being constructed now and what are their rents when they they are built and they come online. And typically they are much higher than other rents of existing buildings or older stock. So you can't really just go by the median when you're talking about what rents are these new units gonna be at.

Right. I mean these are new buildings that were permitted at the peak of the of the building boom that are a 100% market rate and are all very high end is the 12 that you selected.

Yes. Also, if I may, a small piece of important context is that based on our recent history, there's been very few moderate income units that have been created as part of the, affordable housing impact fee on-site option. Our data suggests there's only 28 units that fits under that category. By far, to the extent there are any kind of deed restricted moderate income units in Oakland, those tend to be a product of density bonus. So we understand that that is generally controlled by state law. So I think it's important for us to note that when it comes to discussions about impact fee compliance inclusionary options, it's very rare for people to take the moderate income route.

All right. Those are my questions.

Thank you. Commissioner Randolph?

Yeah. Thank you so much for this report. Definitely very helpful, kind of a snapshot of where we are. I do have a couple of questions, and then, I guess maybe some comments as well. Given that affordable projects are carrying a disproportionate share of production, what risks does staff or you see if Measure U and similar funding, sources are not renewed or replaced in the future?

Sure. Through the chair to Commissioner Randolph, that's an excellent question. We have had a lot of success with Measure U recently. Actually, later this week or potentially next week, our department's planning on putting out our annual impact report. I think you heard about, the success in terms of affordable housing completions, this past year.

We have over a thousand affordable housing units that are under construction or will start construction this year. So there is a very robust pipeline, including over 600 deeply affordable permanent supportive housing units, for unhoused neighbors that are going to be moving forward in the near future. But after that, there is indeed a potential funding gap once measure use has finally been spent down. So there's been a lot of discussions about there potentially being a regional housing bond in 2028. At some point, there may be some form of infrastructure bond successor, but we are very mindful that although we've had a lot of success with Measure U and just earlier this week, we got the data from Alameda County that there's been a 20% drop in the census of homelessness in Oakland based on the point in time count, which was a mixture of the city's interim investments as well as permanent investments and investments in homelessness prevention.

But to sustain that progress, it will require additional resources to continue to produce permanent exits. So that's a very good point indeed.

I guess I can wait for the progress report, but, it would be great maybe to share that with the commission once once you have it, if if possible. How much is, left in Measure U and can be used to drive more production? Production? When When do do you you think think it's it's gonna going to be spent?

Emily Weinstein, Director of Housing and Community Development. So we have spent $248,000,000 of the $350,000,000 of Measure U. We'd be have to wait for the third tranche of Measure U to be sold. But based on our strategic action plan, which drives the investments that we make, we probably only have about maybe $50,000,000 max that would go towards new construction. We have, based on the, our equity investment framework, a significant portion of the third tranche will go to our preservation, our acquisition program, and some would be going to our portfolio rehab.

Of course, portfolio rehab won't end up in the arena, and only a component of our acquisition won't. So we are going to be seeing you know, we have this robust pipeline. Like Caleb said, we have about a thousand to 600 units that will be under construction and then coming online over the next two years or so. All of Measure U will be spent down by 2,030. But we will be seeing a cliff in terms of the number of units produced unless we have another large general obligation bond.

And rehab is important because it keeps people in housing rather than forcing them out of housing because you don't have to close or The the

rehab is important. We just did a survey of our entire portfolio. We have about 9,500 units in our portfolio. None I can't remember the percentage, but almost none of them have done any significant investment in their major systems. Some of these projects are, you know, decades old. Yeah. And so a lot of the projects will be probably going after rehab tax credits, in 2027, and we're trying to line those projects up. We have we'll have a NOFA for about $7,000,000 of tranche two of Measure U

Mhmm.

In end of summer, hopefully early fall, so that we can line projects up for tax credits in 2027.

Good. That's great news. The report notes that ADU permits fell below 200 for the first time, this housing element cycle. Do you see this as a blip tied to interest rates and overall construction costs, or is it an early warning that we may need additional ADU focused implementation actions?

I think it's most likely due to high construction costs and high interest rates. We don't have, you know, direct input from ADU owners to back that up. But as far as we can tell, it is part of this larger you know, the larger headwinds for construction.

Mhmm. Yeah. I know that the the commission has talked a lot about ADUs over the last couple meetings and and and cycles, and I like when items seem to overlap or tie together. How do the, ADU volumes in 2025 relate to the ADU related code changes that we are seeing in item three tonight? And do you anticipate that those changes will help stabilize or grow ADU production if passed, or is it mostly just to clean up in alignment with the state law?

Yeah. The, yeah, the changes that are on the aft this afternoon on the for ADU are just really cleanup items resulting from a letter that we got from the state HCD basically saying that our recent code changes, there is a few things that they said were needed to be tweaked to be in what they said alignment with what state law was saying, which is often, as we know, very confusing.

Okay. Well, it's I think it's been very, very exciting that Oakland has been a regional leader in RENE performance so far and something that I and the commissioner, I think, have acknowledged over the years. But the data that you presented, I do believe could be an early warning sign that structural headwinds like financing, construction costs, ADU softening could put that trajectory at risk if the city does not actively respond in one way or another. Looking at your report, it looks like completion in 2025 dropped to thirteen ninety one units, the lowest since at least 2018, and my calculation is 38% below 2024 with an actual 66% decline from '20 from the 2021 peak, showing that overall delivery has kind of something almost lost momentum. Giving giving the slowdown in completions and the reliance on subsidized projects with Measure U and others, what specific actions in 2026 do you see are most critical in keeping the city on track for our arena obligations?

Are we heavily reliant on this financial climate, on outside financing, or are there other tools that the commission and the city could do?

Yeah. So I think, you know, things we have been doing already is we've been working on trying to streamline as much as possible the approval process. These are the things that we, as a city, have the most control over is trying to reduce those costs for developers because ultimately we're talking about cost. You know, if we can make the process faster, you know, having shorter carrying cost for loans and so forth will help reduce those costs. We've also which we've already done with our impact fees was we change when you pay the impact fees for developers so it's now at the certificate of occupancy which also helps reduce the carrying costs for loans for developers as well and we've also eliminated the affordable housing impact fee for the smaller projects of the two to four units in order to try to further incentivize those because the thinking is that the smaller units don't need the same kind of financing mechanisms that the larger units do or larger apartment buildings do and so trying to see if we can get more of those smaller units you know some of the success we've had for ADUs also try to get more of those in these two to four unit projects.

And a lot of the zoning changes also made that easier be it by allowing higher densities of these where we before only allowed a single family home on most properties and now basically almost all properties allow two to four units. We are looking also with our general plan to further with the land use and transportation to further allow more densities on some of these smaller properties. So the idea again of trying to allow for some of these more even maybe up to 10 es and so forth on some of these smaller lots in order to try to have more infill development and not be relying you know entirely on these much larger multifamily projects that really need this a lot of financing and for them to be approved. And also are often affected by, you know, especially high rises with the steel construction is is really expensive right now. So trying to look at, you know, other types of, you know, different levels of of development.

So not just all higher high rise development, but lower and mid rise development as well. And, you know, the state seems like they're they are looking at some things. I think I can't remember the the one of the new senate bills is looking at a potential idea of a downtown sort of like a S B 79 in a way before the the downtown regional zone area. And what the one of the things they've talked about is potentially providing some loans, lower cost loans, I think, from the the state government to try to help those developments actually that are high rise developments and so forth be built in downtowns. So that could be a potential way that might be coming from the state to help with financing aspect.

Would that would that potentially include conversion from office to housing?

Yes. That could yes.

Thank you so much.

Emily Weinstein, director of housing community development. I just wanna add to that. I mean, I think part of the success that we've seen in Oakland over the last eight years was the huge, delivery of market rate units. And so no matter what, there's gonna be a time for absorption. Where you're seeing the end of the rise of other cities now is because they had no construction happening during COVID, whereas Oakland maintained that construction. So I think we're gonna see a peter off. There's no way to get around that. That's just the regular cycles of of construction. Where you're seeing some other cities also start to perform well in Rina, it's because they are subsidizing those moderate income. Like in San Jose right now, they're putting in shallow subsidies for people between 80 to one twenty.

And we made the decision as the housing department that we are only subsidizing the deeply affordable units, and our equity investment framework will continue to target those units. But that means that then they're very expensive units, and that's where we're putting our city resources. So it's just a matter of trade offs, but I don't think anybody thinks that we can meet our RENA targets. Those are unfunded mandates, and it just is what it is when we're working in the larger housing, market.

Vice chair, do have any questions? No? Okay. Great. So let's go to public comment. You all so much.

We have one speaker. James, do you wanna come to the front?

And a reminder that all public speaking today will be limited Thank to one you, Carmen. For the chair.

Thank you.

And please state your full name for the record. Thank you.

Yes. James Van with the Oakland, Tennis Union. According to the HUD standards, family of four can make about a $130,000 a year and still be considered, affordable, eligible for affordable housing. I read someplace recently that the income for family of four average income family of four below MacArthur is about 47,000 a year. And, my question is, how does the housing element report and the studies, reflect on that category of residents?

A large share of residents much below the HUD standards, how is that reflected in the in the reports with the production of housing and with people of able to afford housing in the categories that don't exceed 30% of their income. How how is that reflected in the report? Thank you.

Thank you.

You so much. Do we want to go to comments? I saw I I know. You almost you almost made me hit the mic button. Okay. Who wants to start? Alright. Commissioner Arons.

Thank you. So, again, my thanks to the staff, for this information. So, basically, for the last six years since 2020, except for the two bedroom apartments, the moderate income rent, even though it was calculated at 30% of the 110%, was higher than the the market rate rents. And what I'm hearing from staff is wanting to have this, you know, policy for the long run over the course of ups and downs. But a lot has changed in the last six years, and the city has updated a lot of its policies and a lot of its planning code.

Like, we adopted the housing element in 2023 as part of the general plan update, the first phase. We adopted the Downtown Oakland specific plan. We, as a city, have made changes to our policies and to our planning code, you know, over the last six years. And six years, you know, is is a significant amount of time. I feel like the what would have helped me in the attachment is just having more information on the methodology, which is why I asked in the question portion because I just wasn't clear where the numbers were coming from, how the buildings were chosen, and it would have been more helpful.

I mean, you explained it now, but while I was reading the report, just to know more about the decisions that you made. So I think looking at the data over the last six years, what we can say is that moderate income units aren't really serving people right now, and the city is saying, oh, they might in the future. But I really want us to be focusing our policies on home health aides and barbers and folks who need housing now. And we know that those folks need housing now. And I know that HCD has been focusing on 80% and below, that's super rad.

I love that. You all are kicking butt. I was happy to see the Oakland site article about the decrease in homelessness and all of the units that are coming online. I I'm just looking for a little more, consistency, I think, between the planning code and some of the the city's other initiatives. I think the other big thing for me right now is I feel like we're leaving credit on the table.

We're leaving recognition on the table when Oakland is producing so much and has produced so much that we're not actually counting units that that we could be counting. And I'll come back to that in a little bit. But, like, you shared during your comments that it's rare for developers to be taking the moderate income route, and we know that developers are lowering their rent because they can't rent at that high level. So these are these are things that are still concerning to me even after reading the report. And as I've shared before, our comparable cities, you know, San Jose, Fremont, Sunnyvale, Berkeley, they don't have a moderate income only category for their on-site affordable housing.

They do have moderate as part of a combination, which now we have in Oakland as well. But it is not a good public policy to allow developers to build only moderate units on-site and meet their affordable housing credit or requirement. That is just not a good use of our regulatory capture as a city, and that's why I wanted, to have this analysis. So a couple other comments or a few other comments about the report. Thank you for including the full TCAC map.

I know we discussed that during the Zoning Update Committee. And thank you for putting in the charts about permitted units in the different resource areas as well as by council district. So just noting that there were no deed restricted units in high or high resource areas. I know that that's because some of the high and high resource areas are restricted because of being in high fire zones, but there are lots of parcels that could meet that in those areas. That 66% of the deed restricted units were in District 7 and twenty two percent were in District 3.

So 88% of our deed restricted units were in West Oakland or Deep East Oakland. And I have a lot of concerns about how we're, with that information, going to be able to affirmatively further fair housing. We need to be building deed restricted units in high and highest resource areas in council districts that are close to transit and other amenities. So yeah, I just want us to be able to prioritize that in some way. I know that the city is very dependent on what developers bring forward.

You don't necessarily have a pipeline in higher, high resource areas, but I would like to see us grow in that area. I'm looking forward to hopefully having vacancy data. I know that you hired an asset manager somewhat recently, so hopefully in the future, you'll be able to provide the data on the vacancy and the deed restricted units. Okay. Two more big things.

The San Jose example. So I felt like your reasoning was a little unsatisfactory. It was sort of like, we don't like that San Jose is counting nondeed restricted units. As you've shown in the staff report, San Jose has permitted over 20% of their RINA allocation for moderate income units. This is what I'm talking about when we're leaving credit on the table.

Like, if we want to meet or get close to meeting our arena goals, we should be counting every unit that we can because Oakland has built so much. And the city is moving forward with the ABAC methodology for counting ADUs for RHNA, even though those are not deed restricted. So I'm looking for some consistency here. You're counting the non deed restricted units that are ADUs even though 55% of the ADUs aren't charging rent based on your survey. But you don't want to pursue a methodology to count non deed restricted units in market rate buildings like San Jose is doing.

So I feel like there's kind of a little bit of an inconsistency here. And again, my motivation is trying to get us to take as much credit for the housing that we have and that we've done a really good job of building in a lot of ways. So I'd like the staff to look into that a little bit more. I know in the staff report, you said it's going to take coordination with a bunch of different departments. But I'm hoping that we can move forward in that area.

And then, yeah, again, on the ADU piece, like, was concerned that the survey data I know the sample size was low, but that 55% of the ADUs aren't charging rent. But then we're counting those for Rina based on the ABAC methodology. So again, I just want some consistency there. The last thing I'll say is Laura had mentioned the changes to the impact fees about deferring payment till certificate of occupancy and eliminating the fees for the two to four units. When other density changes come back to us for the loot, I would like to see an evaluation of those policies, before I can make decisions about doing changes for other densities because, the whole point was that that would help to spark development, reduce barriers for developers, and it would be good to see an evaluation of that if possible.

I know that sometimes things take time, but I'm, yeah, very focused on on the impact fees and and would like a little bit more information about about how they're going. So I know that on this body, we can't make changes to how the impact fees work. But again, I feel like we are there's a little bit of a misalignment in our stated policy goals in some of our other programs and continuing to allow to have that moderate income only option for developers for on-site units. They're just not charging rents at that level, and they shouldn't be getting credit for building affordable units that are chart are being rented at market rate.

Commissioner Deline.

Yeah. Thanks to the staff, for putting this together. And, you know, I think, reducing barriers to to developing housing is all well and good. I think that, overall, though, you know, the biggest reason why housing doesn't get built is because it is a commodity, and it is dependent on things like financing costs and construction costs and macroeconomic factors that are beyond our control. So, you know, I think when we're reducing barriers, we also have to be careful about how it impacts in other areas.

You know, when when we make make concessions around things like impact fees, it affects the development of affordable housing, which is something that that is successful currently. And I feel like, you know, this this data around median income rent limits versus market rate rent, which is an issue that has been coming up for for over a year now. And now we we have data to to see, and it's it's it's pretty glaring that, you know, average rent has been below the moderate income limit for over a decade now. Would need to increase by something like 70% in a single year to for for the moderate income limits to be meaningful. I mean, it's lower for the newly built, you know, high end fully market rate housing that was, you know, permitted at the peak of the boom.

The gap is something like 40%. But, you know, these gaps are are growing each year because the the income limit is growing faster than the rents currently. And, you know, in the future, you know, that that that market rent may exceed the moderate income limit, at some point. But the heart of the issue is that in, in the coming years and, in in the recent years, the moderate income restriction on housing units basically has no public benefit, but there are public concessions available, in particular, impact fee waivers and also density bonuses and some other things. But I think that this is a really glaring glaring data that that we can't ignore.

And, you know, at the same time, you know, this kind of policy change would require city council action, but I think that we could make as a commission a recommendation that this issue be addressed. I don't know. Maybe as we could agendaize, a resolution or I don't know what the best path is, but I think to fulfill our duties as an oversight body, we we should make some kind of recommendation on on this issue. I would support some kind of change to the requirement that that constructing only moderate income units wouldn't be sufficient to qualify for for some of these concessions. We could also pair the moderate income restriction with requirement that, you know, if the moderate income that if the market rent is below the moderate income limit that there that there's that the rent still needs to be below market by some percentage.

So I'd be curious if other commissioners are are what appetite there is for either of those kinds of recommendations.

Go ahead, commissioner Arons.

Thank you. Yes, I would would be interested in in making a recommendation.

I I'm just trying to kind of figure out what how what we're doing today sort of fits in with sort of the history of the buildings that we were analyzing. Because they these most of these buildings I don't I don't know the percentage, but I just know offhand that a handful of them were all entitled prior to the affordable housing fee. And that's why they are all market rate. And I don't know now that we have since enacted either the impact fees or more robust affordable housing rules if we would see a building come through now, that would be all market rate. And I don't think that we would, just as a practical matter, right?

Because you're either going to do you're going to have a requirement to satisfy the affordable obligation and or also use state density bonus. So I just I don't I don't know if we need a new policy because I don't think we're going to see this kind of situation happen again, having been part of it as a as a a land use lawyer when it was all happening and there was a big rush to to get all of these buildings done around the Broadway, Valdez area in in particular. So I don't know if we're gonna see a boon like that if if ever again. So that's, this is my 2¢ from a practical standpoint.

Yeah. Through through the chair. That's helpful. I think that, what Commissioner Lee and I are focusing on is our impact fee schedule that currently exists. That would apply it's not I agree that we're maybe not seeing fully market rate buildings. It's about, the percentage requirements for developers when they're building on-site units, and making a change to that impact fee schedule. That was adopted by the Council last summer.

Okay. No, thanks for that. Commissioner Randall?

Yeah. I would be supportive of figuring out that as well. This we would love to see what that might look like. Because I think this is just a report, so there's not really any action or recommendation that we can tie to this presentation today, I believe. So I don't know where that would come up in the future either through, I don't know, resolution. I don't know if the commission can just do resolutions, but or if this has to be tied to an additional future co change or

It would I mean, maybe someone at the staff level can correct me. But, I mean, I think we can maybe provide guidance, but we're not creating policy. And if there is something that's coming forward that we could attach something to a resolution that we adopt, maybe that's the way to do it. I don't know if there's anything sort of in the pipeline that would fit that description, but maybe that's the best way to do it. Or you guys just take this under advisement today and and we try to figure out the next step.

Thank you. Yes. Through the chair. I think, you know, I've been trying to advise on this for eleven months now, and I'm really, you know, thankful that we have the report. And this is a data informed discussion that I wanted to have.

And so I I think I'm looking for something that is maybe, a little stronger than advisement. And maybe that's not possible through this body. But, you know, that's why I was curious about when, the impact fees would come to the council again, and if that's not scheduled, you know, maybe trying to figure out figure out a way to continue this conversation. Because I just want us to be in alignment with our peer cities about the percentages or the combinations that we require for on-site to better help us, you know, meet our goals.

I mean, I would add through the chair is that if we compare ourselves to pure cities, we're way underperforming on moderate compared to our other cities. So I think there also there's not necessarily a problem to solve in this situation because we are having so few moderate and a lot of times when we have the moderate they are actually being paired with other affordability levels when they do happen because what happens is somebody who is providing extremely lower very low housing has to help subsidize that by having some moderate affordable units. So if you actually look at some of the ways some of the developments have of the moderate that have been produced, they are combined with very low units as well. And that's actually exactly what the S-thirteen does that we did in the planning code. So it is requirement that you provide 20% very low and 20% moderate.

And the idea that's a 40% requirement of affordable. So if a market rate developer is trying to build 40% affordable, they're going to need to build some of that as moderate. Otherwise, it's not going to pencil out for them. So that is a way to try to incentivize moderate but still providing very low as well. So yeah, so we and I think also we've heard when we had our part of our impact fee analysis discussion that we worked with with Linda Hausreth with Hausreth Economics and the analysis that she did and also working with meeting with different mark or developers and some of the developers actually said that the only way they're able to even produce housing in this market right now is by providing some moderate affordable otherwise the housing wouldn't even be built at all.

So that is also a concern that if we that could actually reduce our overall arena even more than it is now because that's actually something that's helping some developers produce housing.

Right. So what but what I'm saying is not about eliminating moderate income de restricted units. It's about saying that we will not have that as the only category. So we have a combination. I'm happy to hear that there's a 20% and the 20%.

So I'm I'm it sounds like that, I'm not saying to eliminate that as an option. We do need it to meet our arena goals. I'm just saying that we should be focusing our regulatory power as a city on the very low income and low income units. And that if we want to count moderate income units towards RINA, then let's explore what San Jose did to count the non deed restricted units. You know, I want us to get credit for the units that we have.

And if other cities are counting non deed restricted units, You know, we're counting non deed restricted units as ADUs, and 55% of those in the survey aren't charging rent. I mean, there's just not consistency between how we're counting non deed restricted units. So this is I think we just have a difference of opinion here, but I'm sharing as a Planning Commissioner, supported by some of my colleagues, that want us to be getting credit for the units that we have. And I want us to be focusing, yeah, the power that we have as a city on making sure that they're we're building units, which we're doing a lot of for people that that really need them.

Yeah. So I say for the the ADUs is a different, I would say are different than the actual when you're talking about buildings and apartment buildings because the ADUs, we actually when we survey them, we do see what their actual rents are. And even the ones that are coming on new are rented at these rents. And so I think that is a more of a unique thing than we're talking about in market rate buildings. So we do see a difference in those, and that's also something that the state has sanctioned where they actually previously did not sanction that.

We were not able to count ADUs at all as as affordable, And that's something that's new. That's something that they they have sanctioned for us. And I think with in addition, when we're looking at the moderate and, you know, I think the concern again that we have is that they're not deed restricted also when you're talking about going forward and you're also not even looking at the income level of the people who are living in those units either. So there's also that concern is they may be moderate but the people who are living in them may be making much higher income levels. So that is another reason for having deed restricted moderate units.

Right. But we the ADUs, we don't know the income of the people that are living in the ADUs either. That's just a proxy based on the ABAC methodology for the affordability of the unit. But someone who's making $200,000 could be living in the ADU paying $1,000 saying that that's an affordable unit. It is an affordable unit because their rent is low.

But, like, I'm I'm, you know, I'm trying to point out that there if you're gonna say, oh, we don't know the income of the people in the nonded restricted units, we don't know the income of the people in the ADUs either. And so that's why I'm trying to say, like, I'd like a little more consistency between those two things. And if San Jose is doing it, then the state must have said, Okay, you can do it based on the methodology they provided using CoStar data. So I'd, you know, I I want us to get credit for the the units that we have.

Yes.

Thank you. Through the chair to the commissioner, you know, I think there's a lot of complicated issues. Some of this includes, you know, modeling questions about forecasting the future of rent trends in Oakland, which is difficult, and reasonable analysts can disagree on these things sometimes. However, I also just want to, reiterate that since this has become a compliance option for the affordable housing impact fee, there's only been 28 units that have been restricted under this moderate income category. And as was touched on recently, the incentives that are available under state density bonus law are so attractive that we anticipate that will continue to be a major tool that projects will continue to do.

And there is, as part of a range of options, a moderate income option is part of the state density bonus law. So the question about whether moderate income units should be part of the affordable housing impact fee schedule is something my department doesn't have a strong opinion regarding, but we do wanna just be mindful also of the sense of scale of the question here because we know that there are a lot of different components that this commission is focusing on. So as you all are thinking about the most impactful area of focus, just want to reiterate that context. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes. And so you're saying people aren't using it, so let's leave it. I'm saying people aren't using it, so let's remove it. You know, as Commissioner Lee said, I want us to be focusing on the public benefit. And there are ways to have deed restricted moderate income units through the density bonus that people are taking advantage of. Great. We need that. I'm not saying that we don't need deed restricted moderate income units. I'm just saying that I don't want it to be the only category.

And I want us to be counting nonded restricted units for Rina. So I don't I I think I've made my point clear, and I appreciate, again, staff's work on this topic. You know, this is an advisory body, and we can make recommendations to city council. And, yeah, I'm looking forward to trying to make some recommendations to city council.

So is there is there a way to, could we, like, angenderize something under, commission matters to consider a proposal the next meeting or something like that for a recommendation just to have something on paper, like a resolution or

where we So would I'm going to speak to what you can what amount of authority you have over staff and staff work products. I'm not going to speak to this item specifically, just to be clear. And so the Planning Commission, you are able to make a motion to state what you would like to see, But that does not commit the Bureau of Planning to undertaking your request or undertaking a request at the time when you would like it to happen. We do have workload that's dictated by the authority over us, which comes from the city administrator and the mayor. But if you believe it's a way to state your position, you are welcome to do that.

So we cannot make a commitment to responding affirmatively to to a motion that makes a request for a work product. But you certainly are able to make it if you believe that that will express the position of this commission. Is that helpful? Sure.

Can we actually make a motion on an informational item procedurally?

Well, and I see the attorney's reaching You ahead of can make a motion.

Yes. It's just, and then it would just, every comment's in the record. I just don't know what where that goes. Where does Right. That end

So you've done that before. You've made motions at times because there have been a range of comments. And in order to both clarify and capture the range or try to agree on comments, you're going to share with staff. You've done that in the past. Not recently, but you So have done it in the even that is acceptable.

Yeah. Brian Mulry, through the chair. So what and from the city attorney's office. What you can do is you would make a motion to memorialize whether that's the commission's perspective. You can provide individual feedback, but that would be the individual's feedback, not necessarily the commission's feedback.

So you can respond to an informational report. It's not binding or requiring further action to come back, but it does memorialize for the minutes and the record as to what the perspectives are. So if this commission agrees as on a quorum to make a motion, or a majority, I should say, that, commissioner Aaron's perspective is correct, then that would be the commission's feedback. Or commissioner Aaron's can state that this is my individual feedback. And so both will be registered in the minutes. And, also, you have the ability when the information report is given at counsel to show up as an individual and exercise your first amendment right.

And and I'm I'm gonna make one quick correction there. Our minutes are only action minutes, but we do have the recording of the meeting, which KTOP provides to us and we post on the website. So that may influence your the the the minutes capture motions Gotcha. But not discussion.

Is this report going to the council?

Yes. It is going to rules tomorrow for the

speech ruling.

Great. Alright. Well, I'm willing to entertain a motion.

I mean, I I think I think we should probably just have this discussion in a different on a different day. We'll like, agendize it so so we have a a more fuller discussion and ideally have something, prepared that fully articulates, you know, something our position. But don't know.

I mean, how does that work mechanically? So because we wouldn't

Under commission matters, can we just agendize it? We're gonna have this discussion at the next meeting and

So what would we policy.

Right. So we we bring items. Staff brings items to you, right, because we are required under the Oakland Municipal Code or other authority that applies to, well, like CEQA, etcetera, to bring items in front of the planning commission. So I think staff would be very curious to hear what specifically you'd like to bring back. Of course, under planning commission matters, you can discuss items that are not on the agenda, but you won't have staff here necessarily to support that discussion or respond.

So that that gets a little problematic because you're really speaking Just one person. Shouldn't say it's I'm sorry. That was an opinion that it's problematic. Because it's up to you how you'd like to do that. But if you discuss items under planning commission matters that are not agendized, you will not have staff here to, respond to you to provide any input, or analysis or guidance vis a vis the Oakland Municipal Code application.

But could we just draft a resolution and and agendize it and say that we're gonna discuss it related to,

Well well, who would draft the reso?

Think we

Could we?

Oh. Through the chair. I think we need to make a motion here. Yeah. Because staff place items on the agenda, and they would they would be doing the work to bring the item. So I don't think that we we can request an item to be placed on the agenda, but we aren't doing the we wouldn't put the staff report together for it.

Right. Or the resolution. Yeah.

And if I might repeat myself, which I do frequently, you can make a motion to express what you would like. I cannot guarantee that we will satisfy your request, but it would be memorialized.

Yeah. I mean, I think that's the best we can do right now. Commissioner Arons.

Alright. Through the chair, I motion to update city policy to remove the income only on-site impact fee category and to, count non deed restricted units for our RENA numbers. Or I make a recommendation. Yeah.

I ask a point of clarification to that motion? What who is that directed to? Is it to planning staff to update the policy? Would it be a recommendation to the city council to update the policy?

I believe to city council or both. So

I would include maybe rec and recommend to the city council Mhmm. To update that policy?

Yes.

So staff would come up with that, I guess, that policy, and then we would recommend the the city council

Well, I don't think there's a guarantee that we we would see a policy from staff. I mean, I think that's what we're hearing.

But then we would recommend the city council to actually enact it. Right? It's not us that does the policy change. It's the city council.

If I'm reading between the lines, I'm hearing that we can make a motion today. If there's a majority, it will it's in the record. I I don't know where it goes from there, honestly. Brian, do you

Was there a question for us

this No. Well, I don't think so.

And I'm sorry, I just missed that comment from the chair because I was

Oh, so I was just sort of reiterating what the commission secretary has said that we can make a motion today if it passes by a majority. There's no guarantee that this is going to counsel or that we would get a policy back from staff. It's just we're memorializing this for the record. And I just I guess I think I'm saying the same thing that you've said.

Sounds like you did my job for me repeating the third time. Yeah.

That that's correct. And then with regard to, like, anything impact fee related, it is in OMC title 15. And so we would have to do some illegal analysis as to the purview of the commission to, comment and provide feedback to the council on that issue. I'm not prepared here to say whether or not you you have that you have the ability to comment, but whether or not that would be, like, binding or within the purview of the Planning Commission would be something for further analysis.

Okay.

I heard some discussion. I don't know, and I apologize. We were talking amongst ourselves regarding how to advise you. And so if the motion stands, can you repeat the motion if there has been a friendly amendment? Either way, can you keep us updated on what the motion currently is? Thank you.

Do you want to do that again, Commissioner Arons?

Yes. Thank you. I'll try. So I moved to recommend to city council to remove the moderate income only on-site impact fee category and to recommend to staff to count non deed restricted units for Rina.

So there is a motion.

A second.

And we have a second.

Apologies. A second the a motion by Commissioner Arons and a second by Commissioner Lee. And can we have a roll call vote on the motion,

please? Mean, do have a point of I mean, a discussion, I guess, now that the motion is on

the Okay.

Go ahead, Commissioner Randolph.

So since we are recommending something to counsel, would something come back to us to have a discussion and the debate that we actually have something to recommend to counsel? Or do we just that does that statement is what we're recommending to counsel? Because I think if staff has to has to come back in the future, maybe or maybe not, we would have to look at something and vote on something to pass it along to the counsel. Is that is that correct? Or is we just this we are recommending to the statement to the council immediately? We

are putting it out into the Into the Yes.

For council to act on.

Well, there's no guarantee that they will act on

it. There's no there's no guarantee, but that's what we would like to see. Okay.

Is there an amendment or that okay. Okay. There's a motion with a second. And can we have a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Robb is absent. Commissioner Randolph? Aye. Commissioner Lee?

Yes.

Commissioner Aaron? Yes. Vice Chair Sandoval?

Yes.

And Chair Rank?

No.

Motion passes. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. And thank you so much to staff. Really appreciate the work. All right. So we are continuing on with our commission business. Any guess? We've got a think we have a couple committee reports.

We have at least one from the RAC, the which and I apologize. The chair of the RAC is here. So

And we have ZC too. Yeah.

The ZUC has met since Mhmm. The planning commission last I apologize. So I thought it was only the RAAC. No problem. The RAAC and the ZUC. I do know that commissioner Randolph is prepared to summarize the RAAC outcome.

Yes. See, despite the Oakland site article, do our meeting. We have meetings and are meeting and have robust conversations. Thank you to everyone here to listening to us. I hope it's a good Wednesday afternoon entertainment. We do have a committee report because we actually did meet on April 15, the Residential Appeal Committee. The committee denied appeal and upheld the staff determination that a revision to an approval for 1901 Asilomar Street is considered minor. We had a robust conversation at that committee meeting. Was good.

Okay. Thank you. Chair Arens?

Thank you. The Zoning Update Committee met on April 22 to discuss the annual progress report, which we just discussed as a full commission, and we provided some comments which staff took into consideration. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Okay. Commission matters. I think we're good to go. City Attorney's Report.

No City Attorney's Report.

Okay. All right. So that brings us to open forum. At this time, members of the public may speak on any item of interest that is not on the agenda within the Commission's jurisdiction. And as we mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, everyone will have one minute to speak today. So I will let's whoop. Okay. So I'll let Steph read the cards.

Alright. We have 11 speakers for open forum, and each of you will get one minute to speak. I'll call you in groups of three. We have Leila, Robin, and Lynn. And please state your full name for the record. Thank you.

So I've cut this. I'm Leila Goff. I've lived on Auburn Avenue for twenty six years. And I'm here regarding 6230 Claremont. We support housing. We recognize this property is a valuable asset to Oakland and needs to be developed. We keep coming before you. We have 1,580 signatures on a petition. We have a 150 neighbors who, every Saturday, get an email about what's happening with this project. We want to ensure that the developer stays within the guidelines of the up zoned 55 foot high building with appropriate setbacks and step backs.

The developer has filed an application under zoning number PLN two six zero two five. They're consulting with city staff. With this project eventually comes before you for a decision, we urge you'll look at it with a critical eye towards public health and safety and zoning integrity. Today we're going to talk to you about things that are concerning to us, traffic and safety, the relocation of garbage facilities, shadow and solar access to the Safeway Plaza, and the accurate base density and mixed use calculation per the Oakland Zoning Code. Thank you.

Hello there. I'm Robin Mays, a longtime resident of Rockridge for almost fifty years. I want we want this project to succeed, and for it to truly succeed, it must take public safety into consideration. Right now, the city of Oakland has rightfully named traffic fatalities and speeding as the top priority. We need to see that priority reflected in how we plan this development.

To put things in perspective, we've already seen 52 crashes and two tragic fatalities in this immediate area, and the city and developers should be doing more to prevent these numbers from climbing. Our focus must be on designing for the safe and efficient flow of movement through the site and surrounding neighborhood. We need to carefully evaluate the data and ensure that driveway placements, curb space, and circulation patterns are thoughtfully and meticulously planned. Most importantly, we must guarantee that emergency vehicles, our fire trucks, ambulances, first responders always have adequate space to maneuver safely, turn efficiently, and respond quickly during a crisis. The current proposal raises serious concerns.

The developers do not appear to have had prior experience in designing or building a senior housing facility. And based on their plans presented, it is evident that sufficient due diligence has not been undertaken regarding the safety and operational needs of our neighborhood, our future residents, staff, and the emergency responders associated with this project. Thank you.

Someone gonna tell me when to go?

Oh, yeah. You can speak. Just make sure you say your full name for the record. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Lynn Harlan. I'm a thirty year resident of Auburn Street bordering the the complex at 6230 Claremont. I wanna speak briefly about garbage and recycling truck truck access for the proposed senior housing project. I have personally witnessed countless situations where large vehicles struggle to navigate the streets in my neighborhood.

Garbage truck drivers already have had to back up, stop traffic, or ask residents to move parked cars just to complete collection. These are not isolated incidents. They are signs that the street network was never intended for frequent commercial scale vehicle traffic. I'm asking the planning department and the developer to reconsider the current garbage route routing plan and move waste collection access to Claremont instead of Florio Street. I also strongly urge the city to require a professional traffic circulation study as part of discretionary review.

This is not about opposing housing. It's about ensuring that new development respects the realities of the existing neighborhood infrastructure and protects the safety of everyone who lives there. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. The next three, we have Jack, Leslie, and Jerome.

I'm Jack Gerson. I'm speaking on 6230 Claremont where the developers have claimed calculations claiming 71% more units than they would be compliant with code. They're entitled to only 20% more with the state bonus. How do they get to seventy one percent? First, rely on a full zoning premise which gives them 32% additional claiming that they qualify for neighborhood center mixed use densities. They don't. They're not commercial. They have no ground floor retail. They're not pedestrian oriented. Those are the requirements for mixed use in neighborhood center.

That's number one. Number two, they misinterpret the zoning code bulletin and misapplied the calculations for another 8% compounded with the 32%. On top of that is the 20% bonus that leads to 71% overestimate. Oh, 71% additional units where they're entitled to 20 more. Without the neighborhood center mixed use, they would be entitled to 25 to 30 units fewer than what they claim.

They ask for 203. They claim that they qualify for about 250 and are asking for 203. They only qualify for about a 175. Because they don't qualify for the full 203, you must deny the density based waivers on height, on step backs, on set backs, etcetera. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Leslie Ostwil. I've been a resident of Rockbridge for forty three years. I wholeheartedly support the development of new housing in the community. However, I have serious concerns about the proposed project's sheer mass and excessive height and about the shadow it would cast throughout the adjacent neighborhood, especially during the winter months.

More specifically, the applicant's supplemental material fails to address the shadow impacts on the Safeway Plaza. Based on our analysis, the Safeway Plaza will be shrouded in shade for most of the day throughout the winter months. A bit of history. When the current Safeway building was in development, in the development phase, my neighbors fought long and hard for this sunny plaza to be included in the project plans. By casting the Safeway Plaza in shadow, the design of the Claremont project threatens to destroy the usefulness of that important community gathering space.

It's my understanding that the applicants have failed to provide a solar access study that addresses and quantifies the specific loss of sunshine to this valued and scarce community asset. I respectfully request that you require them to do so. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Jerome Butrick. I'm a practicing architect and a mere thirty five year resident in Rockridge relative to some of these other people. I live a block and a half from the, 6230 Claremont site. While I believe cities need to grow, successful urban growth requires adherence to local, zoning codes and design sympathetic to the attributes of place.

6230 Claremont fails both these tests by misapplying the city's zoning code on maximum allowable base density for the site. The developers proposed a project that is well over the, the allowed, area and unit count relative to the CN one zoning regulations. Unsurprisingly, the result here is a building that is simply bulkier than it should be. While I'm pro growth proposing a building with vertical street wall that's a 150% taller than 55% maximum of c m one zoning rules, makes a mockery of adopted zoning by creating a street wall that is unconscious unconscionably out of scale for the neighborhood. And, at the very least, the commission should require setbacks, to protect the light and air, and scale at the street.

Thank you.

Thank you.

For the next speakers, we have Alexis, Jennifer, and Paul.

Do we have Alexis?

Alexis, last name starts with a w?

Okay. Maybe they left, so we'll we can come back in just in case.

My name is Jennifer McElrath. I've been a resident of Rockridge for twenty five years, and I'm here primarily to speak having to do with the TJ site on College Avenue. The developers are proposing market rate luxury buildings at heights that are multiples of the newer zoning heights, making for heights way out of scale and proportion to their environment. Oakland has 3,500 market rate empty units and several newer buildings are in receivership. Berkeley has 17 empty housing building sites waiting that are waiting for approved projects to start creating dead zones.

We could get more affordable housing and sooner with mid rise lower cost buildings. Studies show that more diversity leads to more vibrant communities. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thanks in advance for your time. My name is Paul Friedman. I live on Ross Circle, a couple blocks from 6230 Claremont. I've been in Rockridge for over forty years and a few blocks from the site for over twenty. I raised teenage girls in this neighborhood, and I'm now a very active grandfather of a two year old walking this neighborhood every day. And I'm telling you, you heard this, it's treacherous already. You know, I will not cross when it says walk without constantly looking back and forth and back and forth. And this will make it far, far worse. I'm pro housing.

You heard that from everybody. When I first heard about this, I told all my friends and family, this is fantastic. I might live there someday. But the details, as they have come out, have raised increasing concern about mass and bulk impact on neighborhood health and safety and other serious site specific issues. So what I would ask is rigorous, rigorous review by all concerned in the city, especially the claim bonus that you heard about of all aspects, and they should the developer should be held to the letter of the law.

And I understand the state laws that the city is now operating under. So there's no overreaching, no shortcuts, no breaks, and I would hope a win win can come out of this process. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright. We have three more speakers. I'm not sure if I called this speaker already Robin, Allison, and Judy.

I'm Alison Teeman. I'm a forty four year resident of the block of Auburn Avenue between Florio and Claremont. One of our major concerns is the proposal to have access to the building on Florio. Florio is an extremely narrow, almost one way street. The proposal was to have garbage and recycling collected there.

This is already a huge problem in the area. Garbage trucks cannot negotiate the tough turns. They have to get residents to move cars that are parked legally or they have to back up considerable distances. So the intersection of Florio and Auburn is very tight. We would ask that you please mandate that all garbage access, commercial deliveries and service activity be restricted to the much more suitable Claremont Avenue frontage. Please, we do not want trucks on Florio.

Thank you.

Hello. Thank you. I'm Rabbi Judy Shanks. I'm a 41 year, resident of Rockridge. Every day of the week, Safeway Plaza on College in Clermont is filled with people enjoying each other's company, working outside, eating meals, and meeting in small social groups.

This is the only public space in Rockridge that receives direct sunlight, making it a favorite with locals, shoppers, and spirited visitors like my adorable grandchildren, like mister Friedman's. The proposal for 6230 Clermont makes no mention of the shadow impacts to Safeway Plaza. This building will shadow the plaza during winter mornings just when people need a sunny gathering spot that makes the plaza so inviting and usable. Take away the sun, and you destroy a vital community center. The applicant has failed to provide a solar access study that quantifies this specific loss.

I respectfully ask that you require the application to be amended with the addition of a solar access study and to mandate design mitigations such as reduced height or increased setbacks to preserve the sunlight for our residents and to make the project compatible with its surroundings. I thank you. Thank you. Is Alexis here?

She's on Okay. So we have no more speakers.

Okay. Great. Oh. Oh. Alright. Come on up.

Hello. I

I wish I had spoken while you were discussing the

Please state your full name for the record. Thank you.

I wish I had been here when you were discussing the problem with moderate income housing. I looked at the most recent debt element dashboard. And in my mind, it looked like 70% of permits as of the time the chart was made were issued to market rate. And only and there was about 25%, something like that, left for market rate and low income. The others are all very low income.

And I'm wondering why developers are coming into Rockridge and building senior housing, which is market rate, when clearly more medium income and moderate income and lower income housing is what's needed there. And that was the legislative intent in passing the housing crisis law was to provide more affordable housing. So I'm actually objecting to the Trader Joe's development, but it's the same as with 6230 Claremont that it seems to me that granting their request for a permit is contrary to legislative intent. And I think you have the power and constitution to say that this is not consistent with our plans and zoning ordinances. It's higher than 95 feet.

And so I'm asking asking you to reject or somehow defer their requests so that more affordable housing can come into Rockridge.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. So that does it for open forum. Catherine, do we have any updates on the sort of where the Claremont project is?

Yes. We do. So the I believe the last time that Planning Commission met, you asked me the same question at the time that case was considered incomplete, meaning they had not provided all the documents required for staff to start conducting review and analysis of the proposal against the planning code and under CEQA. At this time, we are conducting our zoning analysis. It is a complete application. They've provided everything that we require through our basic application for development review. We are conducting zoning review and CEQA analysis. I can't tell you exactly how long it will take to do that. An estimate is three to four months, but it could be longer than that.

Thank you. Did did the applicant request AB one thirty for CEQUA?

I don't know off the top of my head.

Okay.

And I'm no longer the manager for that division. I can ask the manager for additional information. Am I still yeah. For additional information. But I don't think we'll have complete answers until we're ready when we've completed our analysis. But I will ask.

Great. Thanks so much. Oh, Commissioner Randolph?

Yeah. In that same token, I know I asked that question before, and you weren't able to really answer it because there was no active application at the time. So we do we don't want to speculate here. But now that there is an application, I know that I'm getting requests, and we heard it in public comment, for the commission to intervene and influence the application. There is no role for us at this point, right, until there's an actual item before the commission. Is that correct?

That's correct. And again, because I no longer manage the division, I can't even predict at this point. Sure. I don't know enough about this case Whether or not it's ministerial or if it is going to be discretionary, I just don't know. So I'll ask the manager about that. It is under review. And I know I can speak for managers generally for these cases. A lot can happen during the zoning review at the CEQA analysis. So I suspect the manager will say we'll know more once we get closer to completing our analysis about what type of decision process will occur here.

Yeah. So while all this

is extremely helpful information and feedback from the public, I as a commission can't do anything currently. Is that correct?

That is correct. Okay. In addition, the public can monitor, and I know many of you sitting here today and those of you in TV world are monitoring the project, and you can monitor progress of our review on Exela or ACA, as as it is familiarly known by the public, through the city's website. So if you want to see the status of the project and the documents that have been submitted by the applicant, you can see that on our website through ACA. That's the name of our permit processing program. Thank you.

Okay. Great. I think it would be really helpful if we could, really get an update on the CEQA process.

I'll bring that back at the next meeting.

Okay. Thank you. Sure. I think we're going to do a bio break. Let's do five minutes. Thank you, everyone. We'll be right back.

Five minute recess. Thank you.

Five to five? Okay.

I was talking to the waste management guy. I said, you know, they're gonna put 200 resins there for more garbage. He goes, they can't do that. The strictest the way the guy that has to do the work. I can't.

Is it okay if you leave? I think it's okay.

I thought the general plan thing was the Maybe that's what you were talking about at the beginning of the morning.

Problem support that is kind of related. That was the

That's what that was. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Good. Then then I don't need to stay. Super duper. I can go home. Thank you. You're welcome.

Okay. Let's reconvene the May 20 Planning Commission meeting. It is 04:55. And I'm the chair, so I should know what's next. Well, no consent calendar, and so that will bring us to our public hearings. And we'll go straight to item number two.

Right. And item number two on your agenda, I'm gonna scroll down there as well. This is a review of the draft twenty twenty six to two thousand and thirty one Oakland Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and you are being asked to make a recommendation to city council on adoption of the plan as an appendix to the safety element of the general plan. And I don't know the person who's presenting.

I know the interview is myself.

Thank you.

Yes. And I also need the presentation, please. Thank you. Hi. My name is Veronica Cole.

I'm an emergency planning coordinator with the fire department. I've been working with a large interdepartmental group, the community stakeholders on developing our twenty twenty six local hazard mitigation plan, and I'm here to present it to you today. To reduce risk and increase resilience equitably, the mission of the City Of Oakland local hazard mitigation plan is to establish and promote a comprehensive mitigation strategy and efforts to protect the whole community and environment from identified natural and human causes. That's our guiding mission statement for the plan. And it's a plan that, guides what the city of Oakland does prior to disaster occurring.

It's been developed in collaboration with city staff from multiple departments, neighboring jurisdictions, community members, and other stakeholders. In the plan, you'll find profiles of hazards that are likely to impact Oakland, and it also includes a mitigation strategy with 75 mitigation actions to be completed by city departments in the Port Of Oakland. And you should know that an updated plan is required to access certain types of pre and post disaster funding. And a little bit more about that. So we're looking for a b twenty one forty compliance, which requires that the general plan safety element adopt the LHMP.

If we are compliant, then we get these benefits. As an example, additional post disaster funding related to federal public assistance may be available, not guaranteed, but it puts us in, eligibility. A typical law local cost share after a disaster is 25%. Through the California Disaster Assistance Act, CDAA, the state has, reduced that amount to, them paying for the 18.75% of the cost share. And then if we're compliant, potentially, we'll get the remaining balance paid for and then result in a 0% cost share for the city.

Our plan's expiring in July, so we're seeking your, approval on this and your recommendation, to forward it to city council. So new in the plan, this time around, we've revised our mission goals and objectives and actions with a stronger focus on equity. The departments did a lot of work with equity worksheets to help guide their actions and keep an equity focus. We've updated our hazard profiles and capabilities analysis with new equity analysis content. Climate change considerations have been incorporated into each hazard profile instead of having a stand alone.

So every profile where it's relevant now has climate change considerations. And we've also updated the risk ranking methodology to account for additional factors such as resident displacement, impacts to the economy, environment, and transportation. So using this risk ranking methodology, we've ranked the following risk in the following ways. At a high risk, we have earthquake, severe weather, and fire. Those are our three top.

Medium risk is drought, flood, land side, and sea level rise. And at a low risk, we have dam failure and tsunami Saish. And in case you're wondering, a Saish is the sloshing of a body of water that's enclosed, such as Lake Merit or the San Francisco Bay. Here you'll see a map of Oakland that shows our equity priority communities and zones of liquefaction susceptibility. We've actually utilized the same mapping, the same definitions of environmental justice communities in the general plan to inform our equity priority communities.

And we've done this mapping work in the current version where you can see an overlay of hazards and where the equity priority communities, also known as the environmental justice communities overlap. So we have that cross referencing in addition to a data analysis in the plan. Our community and stakeholder outreach is, I think, fairly robust. We were able to do more work this time around than the last time because the twenty twenty one, twenty six plan was, you know, pretty close to the start of the pandemic, so in person was a little trickier. We've reached about 300 individuals with LHMP presentations and forums for a public comment.

We held multilingual in person public meetings at trusted locations and equity priority communities. This included West Oakland, Chinatown Downtown, Fruitville, and East Oakland. And we conducted a multilingual public survey that received 131 responses. And we maintained a website and email interest list to provide a forum for online engagement. So our next steps for the plan, we vote we submitted to Cal OES who completed their review.

And on May 1, they submitted it to FEMA. We're anticipating getting that back for them in no less than forty five days. Pending is their approval of the plan. We're here today because we wanna expedite being compliant with AB twenty one forty. And by approving the plan adopting the plan at this point, we'll be in a better position once it's approved.

We have a public safety committee coming up on May 26. The city council meeting will be June 2. And on an ongoing basis, we're going to be implementing those mitigation actions and conducting an annual plan maintenance, which will be an annual update and progress report, which will start in the spring summer twenty twenty seven and will occur every year from then until we have a new plan. And if you'd like to know more, there's our website here. You can go to www.oaklandca.gov/oaklandhazardplan, or you can Google Oakland hazard plan. It will put you on the local hazard mitigation plan website. And this concludes my presentation.

Great. Thank you so much for that. Are there any commissioner questions? Nothing? Nope. Oh, Commissioner Erins.

Thank you. More, curiosity, about sort of the human made disasters and the like, from hazardous materials or public health incidents or civil unrest. How how were those types of things evaluated? And maybe it said in the plan and I and I and I missed it, but I'm curious about those.

Yes. FEMA has, a series, kind of a list of potential hazards that you can incorporate in the plan that sets you up to be eligible for certain types of funding. But we also felt like there were additional, so the focus is on what they call natural hazards. And something like a dam failure is a natural hazard according to FEMA, even though it's a, you know, technological thing that will happen. But we do mention those other hazards of interest with a short narrative, just because we recognize that they're important for the city of Oakland. But the focus of the plan really is on the natural hazards and not those other hazards that are profiled. I believe those may be handled in other ways in the city.

Thank you.

Commissioner Randolph?

Yeah. Just a quick question. So I know that you have to update it to receive financial FEMA funding with everything going on on FEMA. Have we received any past funding, like, we had the fires? Was it based on on the plan that we had in place? Or, like, how how would you like, how do how do we perform with FEMA in regards to

get it. Olga Olga, do you have any answer for that?

Good

afternoon. My name is Olga Crow, and I'm the assistant emergency manager for the city of Oakland out of fire department. So to answer your question, yes. In most recent years, we have received FEMA funding for 2022, 2023 winter storms. If you may remember, we got ton and ton of rain. Mhmm. Many buildings in Oakland have flooded as well as roads, the zoo, and so forth. So we did I cannot say that we received all of FEMA reimbursement, but the reimbursement has become or has been coming slowly, trickling. The challenge is that it's a long process from the disaster to the money. But unless we have a active LHMP that has not expired, there is no trickle at all.

There's no funding. There's no chance for funding. So this opens us up to if something happens between now and, say, June 15 when FEMA approves it, will be covered. And, yeah, I'll stop here.

Have you ever received funding or applied for funding based on human created or human based?

COVID. Yes.

COVID.

Okay. Yes. It's it wasn't specifically just FEMA, but it's a government assistance. So all of that money is coming from homeland security funding. And so through that, COVID was included. And we have also begun receiving some reimbursements for FEMA. I'm not in the finance department, so I don't know. Sure. They don't necessarily make the those announcements, but, yes, we do receive. And in the past, I've been with the city for a little over six years, so I can speak for since I've been here.

But I know that there have been other disasters in the past that have qualified for fumar reimbursement. And in fact, the fact that we have the money to do or did receive the money to do the LHMP itself is is related to us having disasters and having a current LHMP at all times.

So what I know that living in West Oakland, ideal or the community deals with a lot of human made disasters, that we would consider disastrous, like the the the fires that are happening, you know, the industrial fires at the what are the metal metal recycling, side to, you know, port operations sometimes, and air quality, you know, challenges or issues. I mean, those are probably a little harder to receive funding for to address, right, then because they don't necessarily would FEMA have to declare a disaster, or would it be local local So declaration?

So all disasters are local. They they all local. They start local. So the incidents you are naming, they're certainly disastrous for the area, but they're not necessarily qualified as disasters. In emergency management lingo, there is emergency, and it could be devastating. Right? But it's an emergency, and then there's a disaster. So tsunami would be a disaster. A localized flood because the drain was blocked, that would be an emergency. Right? So there's tiny

What about an oil spill?

Depends on the size. Depends on where. I can't I mean, I can't speak hypothetically like that. It depends. So when an emergency occurs in the city of Oakland, be that emergency or disaster or an unplanned event that is causing havoc in the city, somebody mentioned civil unrest, so that happens, The city can proclaim an emergency.

That opens up some doors to releasing some of the red and yellow tape in city operations to expedite things like purchasing, for instance, or, deploying more staff in different, in different vocations, and we call it disaster service workers, DSWs. So we all are DSWs. Well, we are, but we will stay in our positions. But some of our city staff will not have their position in place at the time of emergency or declaration or whatever. So they may be reassigned to help us or to do something else.

Yeah. If the disaster overwhelms the city of Oakland, then the county can proclaim a disaster, and that allows more resources from the county. Then if the county gets overwhelmed, the state, then the state, the federal. Does that make sense? So however terrible some of the emergencies are in some in, in Oakland that'll kind of localize, they sometimes don't make it the level of the local declaration.

Okay. Thank

you. And sometimes they do.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Nope. Okay. Do we have any cards? No speakers. No speakers. Okay. So, I will bring it back and see if anyone has any comments. Commissioner Arons?

Thank you. Just wanted to say thank you for your work on this. This was new for me to review, and so I feel like I learned a lot. I was working at the city of Emeryville in their public works department during the last atmospheric rivers and dealt with a lot of the paperwork to get FEMA reimbursement. So I understand how burdensome and bothersome it is, but I'm, you know, happy to support moving this forward so that the city can be eligible to receive funding for disasters.

I'll also just add, which I think I've shared before with city staff, that I appreciate the city's continual commitment to equity and to using that word boldly and to centering it in our plans and and in our work. I know it is some governments have stepped away from using that word and focusing on racial equity in particular. So I'm glad to see that that is still a part of this and that there was a greater emphasis on that this plan as opposed to last time. And I was at the city of Oakland and Oak Dot and helped create the geographic equity toolbox in 2019, 2020. So I'm very happy to see how that work has expanded to other departments.

I think it fed into the map in in this report. And when we first created it, it was just sort of to well, it was for the paving plan, but also to respond to service requests about sidewalk cracks and curb ramps and that kind of thing. So it's, very cool to see how the city has incorporated that as a mapping tool across so many departments. So, yeah, happy to support this and move it forward. Thank you for your presentation.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Well, let's see. I didn't know if anyone else wanted to say anything. Okay. Yeah. I I would just echo, what commissioner Aaron said, and thank you for the hard work. I've had some experience with FEMA in my past life too as a congressional staffer and, helped people with their individual claims and got deployed down to Northridge back after the quake and all that kind of stuff. So I've been done sort of the boots on the ground thing, which is which is always interesting, and so appreciate all this work for for our city. So if we have a motion. You're getting all the heat today.

I know. Some of it's self inflicted. So I was just reading from the staff report. Yeah. So I move to recommend that staff wait. Sorry. How should I it's And just

perhaps staff could help the commission craft a motion if it wasn't entirely clear in the staff report.

I'm gonna actually ask Brian Mulry if he can do that in his role.

Maybe it's just

I it's just We make a recommendation

to the city okay.

Yeah. Move to make a recommendation to city council.

Oh, Oh, go go ahead. Ahead.

Okay. I motion to make a recommendation to city council to adopt the plan as an appendix to the safety element of the Oakland general plan.

Thank you. Second. Alright. We got a second.

Before we take a vote, we have a motion by commissioner Arons and a second by Randolph. But I just wanna be clear because we record these meetings to adopt the local hazard mitigation plan, just to be clear about that. I've I've just said it, so it's fine. You don't need to repeat yourself. I see you nodding yes to that. And so now, can you call roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Rob is absent. Commissioner Randolph? Aye. Commissioner Lee? Yes. Commissioner Aaron? Yes. Vice Chair Sandoval? Yes. And Chair Rank?

Yes.

Motion passes and your recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. Great.

Thank you

so Alright. That takes us to item number three. Item number three,

our proposed planning code amendments to update accessory dwelling unit regulations for consistency with state law and provide written findings pursuant to government code six six three two six b to revise I won't read it all because the planner is here to further present the item to you, and that would be Ruslan Filipao I hope I said your last name correctly That's correct.

Thank you.

To make a presentation on this item to the Planning Commission. Thank you.

Great. Thanks, Ruslan. Go ahead.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Ktop. I'm here on behalf of the Planning Bureau to to present the summary of the proposed planning code amendments. So I'll begin with the proposed ADU related amendments followed by other substantive, non ADU, code changes, and then highlight some of the key conforming and clerical revisions, and conclude with the staff recommendation and the next steps. So a brief background of the ATU portion of the amendments.

The city's ATU ordinance has evolved over time to remain consistent with state law. The original ordinance was adopted in January 2022 and then updated in both 2024 and 2025. Most recently, in December 2025, the city received the findings letter from state HCD, that is included with the staff report as an attachment. In response, planning staff outlined the changes necessary to maintain full compliance with the state law, And I'll go over these, three areas. So here are the three recommended changes.

First one is rather, clerical update, to update statute numbering to reflect the current statute. And the next two are, to increase objectivity of the existing, design standards, in the planning code. First is to remove subjective visibility criteria and eliminate a a staff consultation requirement that currently exists. And then the second change is to remove subjective term predominant and replace it with visually similar I'm sorry. And replace visually similar with more objective visually matching term.

So those are the three. We also have two HCG findings for which staff does not recommend any changes. First one, state HCG claims that ADU regulations in the s nine zone, which are the zone in the hills, the very high fire hazard severity zone, that these regulations are inconsistent with the state law and gives the city two options. Option number one is to amend the ordinance to comply with state law, and option number two is to adopt the ordinance with findings supporting the city's determination that regulations comply with the state law. Staff recommends because the city has already satisfied the second option by adopting findings supporting its ADU regulations in the S 9 combining zone.

These findings were adopted, with the original ADU ordinance in, January 2022 and then reaffirmed, in ordinance, adopted in June 2024. So, the therefore, the city, has complied with state law with option number two, and no further action is necessary. Staff also met with HDD staff and pointed at existing findings, and HDD staff has acknowledged the existence of the findings. Second, state HDD claims that creating a preference for ADU location other than in the front setback first and specify it in the planning code, conflicts with the state law, because it precludes the ADU of at least 800 square feet. However, in the meeting with HCD on 04/20/2026, planning staff clarified that the state HCD and and state HCD has acknowledged that, while the ordinance establishes prefer preferred ADU locations, It does not prohibit, front yard ADUs when no other feasible locations, exist.

City is also making findings in the proposed ordinance, to establish that ADUs are prohibited in the front setback. And therefore, again, the city is in full compliance with state law, and no further action is necessary. Next, I'll summarize the proposed substantive non ADU related changes. Here are the a few of them, and first is revise discontinuous standards for nonconfirming activities, eliminate ambiguous purposeful abandonment standard, and establish a clear sixty day time frame for cessation of operations. Next change is to clarify that only objective standards apply to ministerial design review in s 10 zone.

However, the discretionary criteria specified in this, section will remain and apply to regular design review projects. Next, for Wood Street zone, to allow recreational assembly activities such as plazas, community gardens, and so on in DWS nine zone without a CUP that is currently required. Next, it's for the Colosseum zone. Staff proposes to provide a consistent 10 foot front setback along the Hegenberger Road. Currently, all other zones have a 10 foot setback, and only the Colosseum zone does not.

So it's for consistency of development in that important gateway to Auckland. Next, proposal to remove a review deadline for development agreements that does not align with the DA approval process. And finally, to enforce and to clarify undergrounding and screening of electrical transformers in key areas of the city. So finally, there are a few examples of clerical and conforming changes. I'll highlight a few of them.

In downtown zones, it was an error before in the table for in DDT height area five and six. So we are proposing to revise maximum residential density in in that table and also to update maximum height in DDT height area nine to be consistent with with other height zones. Next for s 15 zone, in height limit zone 250, revised the number of stories from 24 to 25 to coordinate with existing height limit. We usually use 10 feet per story, so this would just make the math correct. Next change is regarding the Wood Street proposal to revise lot area requirements for rooming units to be half of those required for regular dwelling units.

Again, it's done for consistency with other zones, and this was already adopted as part of the recent land use element update. Finally, we propose to reintroduce economically feasible definition in definition section of the planning code solely to maintain existing cross reference that exists in title 15 of Ocwen Municipal Code. Next, just clarifying that subdivisions are not approved through development agreement process. And finally, replacing dwelling unit with living unit in some instances throughout the planning code because a living unit term is more inclusive. So that brings me to the end of the presentation, and here's the staff recommendation.

I can come back to it later. And just, this this item is going this package is going to rules, committee tomorrow to be, scheduled for CED meeting on June 9 and City Council first hearing on June 16 and the final adoption on June 30. Thank you very much, and we're happy to take questions.

Great. Thank you for that. Does anyone oh, commissioner Randolph?

First of all, a way to, bury the lead, because I'm very excited about the, the truck intensive use changes in this item. I know it's technically supposed to be about ADU and other stuff, but I have I have some questions about the truck intensive use changes. And as as Catherine mentioned earlier, I know we sometimes make a lot of requests for things to see several of these coming back to us today is is very exciting because I know it takes a lot of effort. So before I begin, I just wanted to say thank you to staff and the team for bringing forward this amendment to the nonconforming truck intensive use standard. This is something this commission raised in the prior hearing.

We had, like, a two hour conversation about it. And I think a lot of us felt a little icky, you know, having to interpret the the policy before this potential amendment. So I really appreciate that that you took that feedback, and the commission reflected that. The code language was needed. And to see that actually coming back to us so quickly is is, I think, very, exciting. And something almost missed reading reading the item. So the question I have, how will this new standard change the way that we handle complaints from residents in the environmental justice communities who are dealing with long dormant but technically nonconforming truck operations?

Well, it is first of all, thank you for your question. And, we are proposing this change that is, fully consistent with the environmental justice element that, was recently adopted. This, in our opinion and, again, we also communicated this change to Department of Race and Equity and discussed this thoroughly. We also rely on the the that was done for e j element for this item. Again, the the intent here is to really make applicants to not come back and challenge essentially what what what happened with the recent, appeal case, by removing the standard that was challenged and including a clear Mhmm.

Sixty day timeline. Before, it was a z zero days, and that was also problematic. Before the EJ element, though, we had a ninety day standard. So overall, the standard, sixty day standard is less than what we had, originally in the planning code. So and I'll let, Laura Kaminski to, maybe answer the rest of the question for

Yeah. So I think what we're trying to do here, and this is the goal of the Immortal Justice element, was that when you have nonconforming uses when they close down is to try to limit as much as possible the potential for a new, you know, business to open up in its place because, you know, that is no longer an allowed use in that zone and especially you already have conflicts with residential. So, yeah, as to Ruth's point, we now have, proposing a sixty day, requirement, but it also does not allow them, which some of the other nonconforming standards in our chapter allow you to still even potentially if it's more than six or the and sometimes it's ninety days more than a year in other instances, you can still even, apply for conditional use permit to potentially reinstate. So that is not allowed in this instance. So once those sixty days is up, then you are no longer longer allowed to, redo that scenario same use.

Other things that are in our environmental justice element and also I believe in the housing element, our action item was looking at potential for amortization of some nonconforming uses and that are, you know, hazardous that are in residential areas. So that is something also that is being looked at by staff as, know, potential another way of dealing with nonconforming uses because you still have some uses that are grandfathered in that might just never leave. So that is another potential tool as well.

Okay. That that was my question. So there's no grandfathering loophole under under this. So the the clock starts ticking once city council adopts this change for any current property in Oakland, or are there

once this goes into effect, I have to look at what date we will have for the effect date of this ordinance. But once it goes into effect, then, yes, the sixty days.

Okay. Good. Alright. Thank you.

Oh, go, go ahead, vice chair.

Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. I just have a clarifying question about how far we can go in restricting ADUs in high fire risk areas while, before conflicting with state housing law. I know that I saw some back and forth there in the letters. If you could just clarify, did you meet with HCD to confirm that the data provided makes it all good?

So what we did and and Brian could always expand upon this as the city attorney, But we what the way that state law is written is that the we submit our ADU ordinance to the state for review, state HCD. They review it. They send us a letter back with comments of things that they think, you know, are saying that we are not meeting state law. We as a city can then, disagree with the state and actually make findings as to why we disagree and think we are meeting state law and bring those findings to city council and have them adopted and that is what we have done in this instance. And so we do believe we are actually meeting state law requirements and one of the main things is when we talk about the ADU law talks about issues of transportation and traffic and being able to you know there's issues with evacuation.

We've done analysis through our safety element and this is actually something that the state required in our safety element to look at areas where you only have one means of egress to get out and that is you know considered a problem and a safety issue And we have quite a few of those in the very high fire hazard severity zone. And again we also looked at specifically, you know, we did not limit ADUs or the number of, we still allow the one ADU but we did not, where we have the limitation, it's not in all the very high fire hazard severity zone. It's in the areas that also have a narrow road width of I think it's 26 feet or less and also have a dead end of over 300 feet and only one way out. So there's a number of of factors here that are causing and it's not even it's not also just for fire reasons. It's also for emergency access because we have had instances in talking with our fire department where there's been, you know, emergency, a 911 call and someone parked on a street that they were not supposed to park and actually the, you know, emergency could not get to them in time and the person actually passed away because the rope was blocked.

And so the concern is, again, if you're having more there's a couple of issues that were brought up because they also talk about that we can can't require parking, off street parking. And we said in these areas, need to have off street parking because you cannot actually park on the street. And if you do park on the street, then you're blocking emergency vehicles as well as access to get out if people need to flee in a wildfire.

Thank you. Makes total sense. I live on one of those streets, so, like, absolutely understand. I guess my question is just if is it in your experience, is HCD amenable to these kinds of proposals and what happens if they're, like, actually, no, that doesn't comply with state law. What then?

Can I add on to that real quick? So we I know we went through this a number of years ago. I think right when I was joining the commission, so there was a big tension between the city's findings and the state, and so there were some mapping changes. Has anything changed now with respect to sort of where we landed back then? Or would you we have the same maps and we overcome sort of the the conflict?

Yeah. So we have not since what's been adopted, nothing has changed at this point,

which is

why when we got this comment, we did say because they say you can either make changes or make findings, and so we just reiterated to them that we have already made the findings and did provide those findings again to them as a reminder.

Okay. And I'm sorry, I hijacked your question, so I don't know if you needed a different

Yeah. I'll also just add to that, when we received the letter in December and responded in January, we there was a question, you know, as to whether our pro housing designation application can move forward. And once we submitted our letter and kind of clarified that we made findings and we'll make findings again through this round, our pro housing designation application move forward and we were accepted as a pro housing designated city. So I think HCD has acknowledged that we're complying with state law by making the findings.

Great. Thank you. Any other questions? Nope. Okay. Doesn't look like we have any cards.

No speakers.

So I will bring it back for discussion or if anyone wants to make a motion.

I guess I can make the motion. Should've picked the previous motion because this one is a long one.

This is a long one. And do we have to read all of it or do we what's your preference?

I would appreciate you reading the entire motion.

I was trying I

It was worth a try. It's your fifteen minutes of pain.

Great. I I think I I I'm way past that fifteen minutes for today, but, here we go. I make a motion to, recommend that the city council approve the proposed planning code amendments to, one, update accessory dwelling unit regulations for consistency with state law and provide written findings pursuant to government code 66,326 B, two, revise discontinuing standards for nonconforming activities three, remove applicability of S 10 Scenic Route Combining Zone discretionary standards to Mysterio Design Review. Four, permit recreational assembly activities in the Wood Street DWS 9 Zone. Five, revised minimum front setback in the DCO two Zone six, remove or review deadline from development agreement procedures in Section 17.138.030 seven, revised utility screening standards in Section seventeen point one two four point zero four five.

And eight, incorporate various conforming and clerical revisions, my most exciting section, and affirm staff's environmental determination.

Motion by commissioner Randolph. Second. And a second by commissioner Sandoval. Vice chair Sandoval. Apologies. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Rob is absent. Commissioner Randolph? Aye. Commissioner Lee?

Yes.

Commissioner Aaron? Yes. Vice Chair Sandoval?

Yes.

And Chair Rink?

Yes. Motion passes, and your recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council.

Great. Thank you so much. Okay. So no appeals today. Let's go to the approval of minutes from 04/01/2026. Can I get a motion?

Motion to approve minutes from the April 1. First, 2026 meeting.

Second. Thank you. A motion by Vice Chair Sandoval and a second by Commissioner Arens. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Robb is absent. Commissioner Randolph? Aye. Commissioner

Lee? Yes.

Commissioner Arons? Yes. Vice Chair Sandoval? Yes. And Chair Rank?

Yes.

Motion passes. Minutes will be posted to the website as approved.

Great. Thank you. Do we have any correspondence? Not through the secretary. No. And any city council actions?

Apologies. It's been a little while, so nothing within the last couple of weeks. I will confirm at the next meeting if there have been any since your April early April April 1 meeting. But I believe, no no actions based on recommendations from Planning Commission or actions from Planning Commission. Okay.

Great. Thank you. So we'll go ahead and adjourn at 05:36. Thank you, everyone.

Thank you all for your volunteering and Yeah.

Yeah.